On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
suggestions greatly appreciated.
Interesting. This just came
On 11/8/2012 3:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:35 heeft Ryan Mallon rmal...@gmail.com het volgende
geschreven:
On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
wrote:
Jane is building custom BeagleBone
On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with
special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be
On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I much prefer having drivers explicitly manage all their resources,
which would mean that pinctrl calls need to be done on probe() and, if
necessary, during suspend()/resume().
Per-driver resource management is certainly convenient when you
meant that the driver should explicitly call
abstracted functions.
On 10/23/2012 7:20 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
HI,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:02:09AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
I much prefer having drivers explicitly manage all
On 10/23/2012 1:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Mitch,
On 10/23/2012 11:55 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
I strongly suspect (based
On 10/9/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular patch review
process; I think it may be
On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular
On 10/10/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
On 10/10/2012 8:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How
On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott Wood
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver
On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it breaks booting on an
XO-1.5. Does anyone from OLPC know why yet?
What are the settings of CR0 and CR4 on kernel entry on XO-1.5?
CR0 is 0x8011
CR4
On 1/18/2013 4:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/18/2013 05:05 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it breaks booting on an
XO-1.5. Does anyone from OLPC know why
://dev.laptop.org/olpc-2.6 . (commit
5b9429be6056864b938ff6f39e5df3cecbbfcf4b).
Please cc me (Mitch Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]) on comments.
OLPC users will need to upgrade their firmware to
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Firmware_Q2B14 to use this.
diff --git a/.config b/.config
index 6087ae7..f15900f
David Miller wrote:
...
Can we please not have N different interfaces to the open-firmware
calls so that perhaps powerpc and Sparc have a chance of using this
code too?
The base interface function is callofw(), which is effectively identical
to call_prom_ret() in
I made all the changes Pekka suggested, except:
+ security = strncmp(propname, security-, 9) == 0;
+ len = 0;
Redundant assignment, no?
+ if (!security)
+ (void)callofw(getproplen, 2, 1, node,
propname, len);
That
David Miller wrote:
We don't generally export binary representation
files out of /proc or /sys, in fact this rule I believe is layed
our precisely somewhere at least in the sysfs case.
pci-sysfs exports PCI config space in binary.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
We could of course have the interface work either on a copy of the tree
or on a real OF (though that means changing things like get_property on
powerpc and fixing the gazillions of users) but I tend to think that
working on a copy always is more efficient.
The patch that I posted creates a
Segher has a modification to the devtree patch that creates a lower
level ops vector that can be implemented with callback or non-callback.
It is still being tested.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
I wonder if using the same structure/array as input and output would
simplify the API; the platform data would fill in the fields mentioned
On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
I wonder if using the same
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between
On 8/1/2012 9:47 AM, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 07/31/2012 09:55 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot
On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:35:51AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
I can't comment on the sysfs-vs-dev interface location, but I don't
think it addresses Johannes' issue;
On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
- APB dma based controller fifo read/write.
- End Of Data interrupt in incoming data to know whether end
of frame achieve or not.
- Hw
On 12/17/2012 12:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 12/17/2012 02:58 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
- APB dma based controller fifo read/write
://dev.laptop.org/olpc-2.6 . (commit
5b9429be6056864b938ff6f39e5df3cecbbfcf4b).
Please cc me (Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) on comments.
OLPC users will need to upgrade their firmware to
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Firmware_Q2B14 to use this.
diff --git a/.config b/.config
index 6087ae7..f
David Miller wrote:
...
Can we please not have N different interfaces to the open-firmware
calls so that perhaps powerpc and Sparc have a chance of using this
code too?
The base interface function is callofw(), which is effectively identical
to call_prom_ret() in
I made all the changes Pekka suggested, except:
+ security = strncmp(propname, "security-", 9) == 0;
+ len = 0;
Redundant assignment, no?
+ if (!security)
+ (void)callofw("getproplen", 2, 1, node,
propname, );
That
David Miller wrote:
We don't generally export binary representation
files out of /proc or /sys, in fact this rule I believe is layed
our precisely somewhere at least in the sysfs case.
pci-sysfs exports PCI config space in binary.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
We could of course have the interface work either on a copy of the tree
or on a real OF (though that means changing things like get_property on
powerpc and fixing the gazillions of users) but I tend to think that
working on a copy always is more efficient.
The patch that I posted creates a
Segher has a modification to the devtree patch that creates a lower
level ops vector that can be implemented with callback or non-callback.
It is still being tested.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/9/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>>
>>> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
>>
>> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
>
> Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular patch review
> process; I
On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
>>>
>>> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
>>
>> Perhaps we can just handle this
On 10/10/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>
> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving
On 10/10/2012 8:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>>>>>
>&g
On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04
On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Interesting.
On 11/8/2012 3:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:35 heeft Ryan Mallon het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
>>> wrote:
>>>
Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>> parent node to represent that
On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with
special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be
On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I much prefer having drivers explicitly manage all their resources,
> which would mean that pinctrl calls need to be done on probe() and, if
> necessary, during suspend()/resume().
Per-driver resource management is certainly convenient when
it".
Now I see that you meant that the driver should explicitly call
abstracted functions.
On 10/23/2012 7:20 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:02:09AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>&g
On 10/23/2012 1:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Mitch,
>
> On 10/23/2012 11:55 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
>>> we have interrupt-parent
On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:35:51AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> I can't comment on the sysfs-vs-dev interface location, but I don't
>>> think it addresses Johannes' issue; finding out
On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
>> - APB dma based controller fifo read/write.
>> - End Of Data interrupt in incoming data to know whether end
>> of frame achieve or not.
On 12/17/2012 12:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 02:58 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
>&g
On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> I wonder if using the same structure/array as input and output would
>>> simplify the API; the platform data would fill in the fields
On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
>>>> On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren
On 8/1/2012 9:47 AM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 09:55 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>>> On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>
On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it breaks booting on an
>> XO-1.5. Does anyone from OLPC know why yet?
>
> What are the settings of CR0 and CR4 on kernel entry on XO-1.5?
CR0 is
On 1/18/2013 4:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:05 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>>> Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it brea
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
>> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
>> with a precise powering order and delays to respect
56 matches
Mail list logo
